6 ms·

As Epic attacks Apple and Google, it ignores the same problems on consoles

42 points by furcyd 6y ago

zepto 6y ago
Epic’s argument is that it should be allowed to operate a profit making storefront on the iPhone. Firstly, they have done absolutely zero of the work needed to make the platform into the giant international success that it is. And secondly - they are complaining about making insufficient profits from FortNite, which is an addictive video game which makes its money from selling in-game currency to children. When we compare the value that Apple has added to the world by building the App Store ecosystem, to the value that these in-game purchases are adding to the world, and for which they are claiming they should be able to profit more from, it’s hard to make the case that Epic is somehow being deprived of some just reward for their contribution. I don’t think it’s wrong for Epic to be able to do business the way they do. But clearly there is no moral case to be made for the claim that Epic has better business practices than Apple or they they are some kind of victim here. It took more than a decade for the iPhone to get to where it has - longer if you consider the iPod as the foundation of the success the iPhone continued. Given the giant inflows of cash they are receiving there is no reason why Epic couldn’t start building their own platform. Console makers have proven that this is a profitable business, and we are about to see a wave of think client devices that play streaming games. Apple is clearly vulnerable to disruption in the gaming space. If Epic wants a platform, they can build one, and it will take a similar amount of work to what it took Apple.
- phone8675309 6y ago
  > If Epic wants a platform, they can build one, and it will take a similar amount of work to what it took Apple. They can't build a sales platform on the iPhone if Apple won't give them the opportunity on the iPhone.
  - zepto 6y ago
    Right - but they can build a hardware platform and then they would have just the same control as Apple does. Epic is a publishing company that has made billions, and rather than investing that in building anything new, they are just seeking to increase their cut.
    - sushid 6y ago
      They're not just a publishing company. They're also a software company that develops the Unreal Engine and actively produce games such as Fortnite and Gears of War built on top of their engine. Also, Apple's stance on iOS is radically different from their stance on MacOS where we do have an App Store managed by Apple but customers are free to install apps outside of it. Epic is the one that's done the work to create and build something new. Why should Apple have to right to charge 30% because they own the hardware business?
      - zepto 6y ago
        Because it’s not just a hardware business, you get their software platform, and a wide range of services too. Epic also charges people to use their software platform. Unreal engine costs money for developers to license. Why shouldn’t Apple be able to charge developers for their platform when Epic can?
        phone8675309 6y ago
        > Why shouldn’t Apple be able to charge developers for their platform when Epic can? Very few are making the argument that that Apple shouldn't be able to charge developers for the App Store platform - so long as there are other ways to install applications on iOS devices that don't require going through the App Store. The situation with Epic is different because even though Epic charges for the use of its software platform on PC it does not have the _only_ software platform for game distribution that can run on the PC. Off the top of my head, there is Steam, Origin, Humble, GOG, Battle.net, and XBox Games for PC as well as developers being able to directly distribute their games without using any third party software platform. Epic and other developers wouldn't have a problem with Apple charging for inclusion on the iOS App Store if there were other ways to install applications that didn't involve jailbreaking the device first - either a first-class-citizen sideloading capability for the end user or the ability for third-party app stores to run on iOS. Apple wouldn't be required include any other app store by default or even advertise that the feature is present if they didn't want to - they can leave all of the marketing and support up to whoever uses that facility.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  Firstly, they have done absolutely zero of the work needed to make the platform into the giant international success that it is. Epic is the reason that iOS is a gaming megahouse today. Infinity Blade, i.e., the game that Apple itself used to demonstrate the iPhone's gaming abilities, was created using Unreal Engine. Epic provided a substantial amount of assistance to the developer to get the game made. But clearly there is no moral case to be made for the claim that Epic has better business practices than Apple or they they are some kind of victim here. Apple has done none of the work of creating the billions of $$$ in valuable apps. Why do they get to claim 30% of that? There's a term for that: rent-seeking. (Also, greed, if you want the moral term.)
  - Emanation 6y ago
    You can use the same moralitic argument for people who develop apps that go on the Apple store.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    Without Apple there wouldn't be iOS devices for Epic to sell their games on, that is what Apple has done.
    - gamblor956 6y ago
      Without Apple there would be Windows Phone, Blackberry, and Android devices for Epic to sell games on.
      - pjmlp 6y ago
        With the same percentages that Epic isn't willing to pay for, actually on Blackberry it was even higher than 30% back in the old days. Epic has been kicked out of Android as well, and as this Ars Technica article shows, they are more than happy to pay XBox tax.
        saghm 6y ago
        > Epic has been kicked out of Android as well Is that really accurate? Android supports sideloading, which I think is how they first brought Fortnite to Android. They might have been kicked out of the Google Play store, but that's not the same thing.
- kwanbix 6y ago
  Apple is making lots of money by selling iPhones and services already (iCloud un such). Charging 30% is outrageous. The other problem is that Apple won't allow anyone to buy an app store for the iPhone.
  - Emanation 6y ago
    Saying they're making enough money is hardly an argument. While there is value in using an iPhone, there is also value in being a developer that develops for the iPhone and can reach the userbase. Is the value too steep? Idk, how does supply and demand work? Why do people develop for the market if the cut is slow large.
    - athms 6y ago
      They develop because they make money and often more on iOS than Android even though Android has a larger market share. That said, people would be still complaining if Apple's cut was only 10%. People complain about the 3-5% that payment processors charge retailers. People complain about the $.35 Arco gas stations charge for using a debit card. People complain about the dime grocery stores charge for paper bags in California.
  - athms 6y ago
    I would take 70% versus pennies on the dollar. I have been developing software since the 1980s and remember the days when software was sold into the retail channel. During that period, a publisher never saw anything close to 70% and you were lucky if your product got eye level shelf space. Nowadays, a developer doesn't even need a publisher or distributor.
    - sushid 6y ago
      Just because you're willing to take 70% shouldn't mean others should be forced to take it.
      - athms 6y ago
- weixiyen 6y ago
  If Epic was fighting only for itself to get a special deal (which they are not), they would not have the moral high ground. But if they are fighting for a process change (which they are), then they absolutely have the moral argument on their side. An App Store without competing stores and payment systems ultimately hurts the consumer, because Apple is not forced to compete on quality and price. As someone who paid for and owns the hardware, I should not be in any way inconvenienced in my ability to choose what to install on it. Apple is only part of the equation of what makes the iPhone great. 3rd party apps are the other part, and today, is the more important part.
  - m11a 6y ago
    It doesn't really matter for Epic whether only they get a cut, or if everyone else does too. I imagine the former would be preferable to have an edge over competitors, but it's also unrealistic and they'd be unable to play that card and have a chance in court. Epic isn't being altruistic here. > An App Store without competing stores and payment systems ultimately hurts the consumer, because Apple is not forced to compete on quality and price. Apple, as a payment processor, shouldn't have to compete on price on the App Store. The fees from the App Store/IAP subsidise other operations. If they were competing solely as a payment processor it'd be impossible to charge more than 3% frankly, so they'd have to hike up prices elsewhere to make up the loss. App Store payments accounted for 6% of their 2019 revenue. I think Apple is entitled to decide on the pricing structure to fund its operations. There's only a competition issue when it comes to Spotify v Apple Music, or Netflix v TV+, or other competing products. That said, 30% is a little ridiculous, imo, and it should be lower. Still, Apple isn't unique in charging merchants a %, which is done by many orgs from the Steam Store to the payment networks themselves, and fixed charges are even more common in many B2B situations.
  - zepto 6y ago
    This ‘not competing on quality and price’ argument is bogus. They are competing with Android on both. It’s pretty obvious what would have happened if Apple had simply stopped competing for even a few years. Having multiple stores will simply increase the costs for developers, and make the user experience worse. A bunch of publishing companies will compete for a slice of the action using all the normal marketing practices. What will they contribute to the development of the platform? Nothing.
- Rebelgecko 6y ago
  I don't think the amount of work that goes into building a platform is a factor for whether something is monopolistic (in fact, if there's a high barrier of entry it becomes even easier to behave anticompetitively. I'm sure Microsoft spent a lot of time working on Windows and Internet Explorer, but that didn't save them from the Depar of Justice
draw_down 6y ago
Yep.
yupyup54133 6y ago
It would be interesting if Epic went ahead an released FortNite on the iPhone AltStore instead (http://altstore.io http://altstore.io).

42 points by furcyd 6y ago

Epic’s argument is that it should be allowed to operate a profit making storefront on the iPhone. Firstly, they have done absolutely zero of the work needed to make the platform into the giant international success that it is. And secondly - they are complaining about making insufficient profits from FortNite, which is an addictive video game which makes its money from selling in-game currency to children. When we compare the value that Apple has added to the world by building the App Store ecosystem, to the value that these in-game purchases are adding to the world, and for which they are claiming they should be able to profit more from, it’s hard to make the case that Epic is somehow being deprived of some just reward for their contribution. I don’t think it’s wrong for Epic to be able to do business the way they do. But clearly there is no moral case to be made for the claim that Epic has better business practices than Apple or they they are some kind of victim here. It took more than a decade for the iPhone to get to where it has - longer if you consider the iPod as the foundation of the success the iPhone continued. Given the giant inflows of cash they are receiving there is no reason why Epic couldn’t start building their own platform. Console makers have proven that this is a profitable business, and we are about to see a wave of think client devices that play streaming games. Apple is clearly vulnerable to disruption in the gaming space. If Epic wants a platform, they can build one, and it will take a similar amount of work to what it took Apple.

phone8675309 6y ago
> If Epic wants a platform, they can build one, and it will take a similar amount of work to what it took Apple. They can't build a sales platform on the iPhone if Apple won't give them the opportunity on the iPhone.
- zepto 6y ago
  Right - but they can build a hardware platform and then they would have just the same control as Apple does. Epic is a publishing company that has made billions, and rather than investing that in building anything new, they are just seeking to increase their cut.
  - sushid 6y ago
    They're not just a publishing company. They're also a software company that develops the Unreal Engine and actively produce games such as Fortnite and Gears of War built on top of their engine. Also, Apple's stance on iOS is radically different from their stance on MacOS where we do have an App Store managed by Apple but customers are free to install apps outside of it. Epic is the one that's done the work to create and build something new. Why should Apple have to right to charge 30% because they own the hardware business?
    - zepto 6y ago
      Because it’s not just a hardware business, you get their software platform, and a wide range of services too. Epic also charges people to use their software platform. Unreal engine costs money for developers to license. Why shouldn’t Apple be able to charge developers for their platform when Epic can?
      - phone8675309 6y ago
        > Why shouldn’t Apple be able to charge developers for their platform when Epic can? Very few are making the argument that that Apple shouldn't be able to charge developers for the App Store platform - so long as there are other ways to install applications on iOS devices that don't require going through the App Store. The situation with Epic is different because even though Epic charges for the use of its software platform on PC it does not have the _only_ software platform for game distribution that can run on the PC. Off the top of my head, there is Steam, Origin, Humble, GOG, Battle.net, and XBox Games for PC as well as developers being able to directly distribute their games without using any third party software platform. Epic and other developers wouldn't have a problem with Apple charging for inclusion on the iOS App Store if there were other ways to install applications that didn't involve jailbreaking the device first - either a first-class-citizen sideloading capability for the end user or the ability for third-party app stores to run on iOS. Apple wouldn't be required include any other app store by default or even advertise that the feature is present if they didn't want to - they can leave all of the marketing and support up to whoever uses that facility.
gamblor956 6y ago
Firstly, they have done absolutely zero of the work needed to make the platform into the giant international success that it is. Epic is the reason that iOS is a gaming megahouse today. Infinity Blade, i.e., the game that Apple itself used to demonstrate the iPhone's gaming abilities, was created using Unreal Engine. Epic provided a substantial amount of assistance to the developer to get the game made. But clearly there is no moral case to be made for the claim that Epic has better business practices than Apple or they they are some kind of victim here. Apple has done none of the work of creating the billions of $$$ in valuable apps. Why do they get to claim 30% of that? There's a term for that: rent-seeking. (Also, greed, if you want the moral term.)
- Emanation 6y ago
  You can use the same moralitic argument for people who develop apps that go on the Apple store.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  Without Apple there wouldn't be iOS devices for Epic to sell their games on, that is what Apple has done.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    Without Apple there would be Windows Phone, Blackberry, and Android devices for Epic to sell games on.
    - pjmlp 6y ago
      With the same percentages that Epic isn't willing to pay for, actually on Blackberry it was even higher than 30% back in the old days. Epic has been kicked out of Android as well, and as this Ars Technica article shows, they are more than happy to pay XBox tax.
      - saghm 6y ago
        > Epic has been kicked out of Android as well Is that really accurate? Android supports sideloading, which I think is how they first brought Fortnite to Android. They might have been kicked out of the Google Play store, but that's not the same thing.
kwanbix 6y ago
Apple is making lots of money by selling iPhones and services already (iCloud un such). Charging 30% is outrageous. The other problem is that Apple won't allow anyone to buy an app store for the iPhone.
- Emanation 6y ago
  Saying they're making enough money is hardly an argument. While there is value in using an iPhone, there is also value in being a developer that develops for the iPhone and can reach the userbase. Is the value too steep? Idk, how does supply and demand work? Why do people develop for the market if the cut is slow large.
  - athms 6y ago
    They develop because they make money and often more on iOS than Android even though Android has a larger market share. That said, people would be still complaining if Apple's cut was only 10%. People complain about the 3-5% that payment processors charge retailers. People complain about the $.35 Arco gas stations charge for using a debit card. People complain about the dime grocery stores charge for paper bags in California.
- athms 6y ago
  I would take 70% versus pennies on the dollar. I have been developing software since the 1980s and remember the days when software was sold into the retail channel. During that period, a publisher never saw anything close to 70% and you were lucky if your product got eye level shelf space. Nowadays, a developer doesn't even need a publisher or distributor.
  - sushid 6y ago
    Just because you're willing to take 70% shouldn't mean others should be forced to take it.
    - athms 6y ago
weixiyen 6y ago
If Epic was fighting only for itself to get a special deal (which they are not), they would not have the moral high ground. But if they are fighting for a process change (which they are), then they absolutely have the moral argument on their side. An App Store without competing stores and payment systems ultimately hurts the consumer, because Apple is not forced to compete on quality and price. As someone who paid for and owns the hardware, I should not be in any way inconvenienced in my ability to choose what to install on it. Apple is only part of the equation of what makes the iPhone great. 3rd party apps are the other part, and today, is the more important part.
- m11a 6y ago
  It doesn't really matter for Epic whether only they get a cut, or if everyone else does too. I imagine the former would be preferable to have an edge over competitors, but it's also unrealistic and they'd be unable to play that card and have a chance in court. Epic isn't being altruistic here. > An App Store without competing stores and payment systems ultimately hurts the consumer, because Apple is not forced to compete on quality and price. Apple, as a payment processor, shouldn't have to compete on price on the App Store. The fees from the App Store/IAP subsidise other operations. If they were competing solely as a payment processor it'd be impossible to charge more than 3% frankly, so they'd have to hike up prices elsewhere to make up the loss. App Store payments accounted for 6% of their 2019 revenue. I think Apple is entitled to decide on the pricing structure to fund its operations. There's only a competition issue when it comes to Spotify v Apple Music, or Netflix v TV+, or other competing products. That said, 30% is a little ridiculous, imo, and it should be lower. Still, Apple isn't unique in charging merchants a %, which is done by many orgs from the Steam Store to the payment networks themselves, and fixed charges are even more common in many B2B situations.
- zepto 6y ago
  This ‘not competing on quality and price’ argument is bogus. They are competing with Android on both. It’s pretty obvious what would have happened if Apple had simply stopped competing for even a few years. Having multiple stores will simply increase the costs for developers, and make the user experience worse. A bunch of publishing companies will compete for a slice of the action using all the normal marketing practices. What will they contribute to the development of the platform? Nothing.
Rebelgecko 6y ago
I don't think the amount of work that goes into building a platform is a factor for whether something is monopolistic (in fact, if there's a high barrier of entry it becomes even easier to behave anticompetitively. I'm sure Microsoft spent a lot of time working on Windows and Internet Explorer, but that didn't save them from the Depar of Justice

draw_down 6y ago

Yep.

yupyup54133 6y ago

It would be interesting if Epic went ahead an released FortNite on the iPhone AltStore instead (http://altstore.io http://altstore.io).